Mondi wrote:All they need to do is stop giving out NTC to lesser players.

There is no point in giving a guy like Alex Edler a NTC.

They could also overpay a little and cut down on ridiculous term. There is great risk in long term contracts for players who aren't young and blue chip.

I think it is possible to get winners to buy into a system that is designed for winning, not comfort.

duh, yeah ... there is a huge point in giving Alex Edler a NTC. If you don't, you lose him to UFA where any team in the running to sign him, will have to include an NTC at a minimum and possibly an NMC. i.e. Canucks lose an asset for NOTHING. That's bad asset management.

One of the good moves former GMMG made was re-signing Edler to the deal ... since he became an asset that can be moved even with the NTC barrier.

All I'm saying is that the NTC model is flawed and has bitten the Nucks in the past.

I'm sure Edler would have re-signed without it, under some circumstance. Maybe it would be worth exploring that, instead of handing out NTCs/NMCs to players who are not top 10 at their position in the league.

All I'm saying is that the NTC model is flawed and has bitten the Nucks in the past.

I'm sure Edler would have re-signed without it, under some circumstance. Maybe it would be worth exploring that, instead of handing out NTCs/NMCs to players who are not top 10 at their position in the league.

Chances are that had GMMG upped the deal to a cap hit of $5.5M he could have gotten Edler to sign without the NTC. All that would have required would have been for Gillis to throw an extra $2M on year 1 and $1M on year 2.

The cap hit would still be movable, but there would be nothing tying the hands of the GM who wants to move him.

All I'm saying is that the NTC model is flawed and has bitten the Nucks in the past.

I'm sure Edler would have re-signed without it, under some circumstance. Maybe it would be worth exploring that, instead of handing out NTCs/NMCs to players who are not top 10 at their position in the league.

Let's have a look at the top 7 teams and how many players they have signed to contracts that include a form of NTC.

Boston has 11.Anaheim has 6.Chicago has 9.Pittsburgh has 10.San Jose has 8.St. Louis has 8.Colorado has 3.

Vancouver has 9.

The Avalanche have O'Reilly and Stastny to re-sign this year, so it will be interesting to see if they give them NTC's.

I will say that if Kesler is on his way out, and O'Reilly tests the free agent waters, the new GM should move a mountain or two to secure O'Reilly.

All I'm saying is that the NTC model is flawed and has bitten the Nucks in the past.

I'm sure Edler would have re-signed without it, under some circumstance. Maybe it would be worth exploring that, instead of handing out NTCs/NMCs to players who are not top 10 at their position in the league.

Be careful with just relying lists from the 4th period or cap geek and websites of that ilk. Dustin Brown has a partial NTC as reported by MSM which cited GM Lombardi as the source. Furthermore, the previously negotiated contracts involving a player they traded for like a Carter had a modified NTC which is up in the air whether they will still "honor" it.

An NTC effectively lowers the AAV of a contract since it's something a player gives up to give them greater control of where they will play if the situation comes where their services are no longer wanted in the team they signed for.

Mondi wrote:Sure, I understand the purpose of the NTC/NMC. But I think you have to decide whether the cap savings are worth the player being able to dictate to the team.

The idea is that rather than carry dead weight contracts (i.e. Booth, Ballard, Luongo*) you spend the extra money on signing guys and not being hamstrung if they need to be traded.

That is predicated on not having bad contracts which is a different issue.

*Not necessarily performance related.

Yeah, it is because more times than not you can move the contract. Bobby Lu's contract was movable, but a combination of factors, i.e. unrealistic expected returns and at the time (unwillingness to retain a portion of the contract) made it very difficult to move him. Kesler with his NTC and Edler with his NTC can relatively easily be moved. The main issue is that the expected return is less because the number of teams they are willing to go to is limited.

One last point neither Booth nor Ballard had an NTC, the problem with them is that their on-ice performance didn't match the contracts they signed for and were effectively unmovable in terms of a trade.

Mondi wrote:My point was that if you have a shit contract (i.e. Booth), you cannot afford to overspend on guys to avoid the NTCs.

And if as you say, Kesler and Edler can be moved notwithstanding their NTCs...what is the point in having them?

Either you give them out and respect them, or why bother?

duh, an NTC is given because it's a negotiated item desired by players where it provides them the opportunity to control where he is moved if his services are no longer desired in the city he originally signed with. See: Iggy. He exercised his NTC to block a trade to Boston and went to Pittsburg instead a couple of seasons ago during the trade deadline. That is the point and why players bother to negotiate them into their deals during the UFA years.

If you don't offer it as part of the negotiation, several other teams likely will, and you end up losing said player for nothing ... unless you trade him for scraps for "negotiation rights" during the period between the end of season and Free Agency season.

The only way to get rid of NTC is to negotiate them out in the CBA. that won't happen without major concessions from the owners. It is the one way players can exercise control, at a specific age. If a team is not willing to give them out they won't be competitive in the FA market, or in re-signing their own players. Some teams seem successful in the modified NTC. I would like to see us exercise the modifies versions more if we can but to eliminate them ain't gonna happen. It is the new landscape.